vsz_list_wlans

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the scope ('in a zone') is stated. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as whether the response includes disabled WLANs, pagination, or required access permissions. This is minimal but not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a simple two-line Args section. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward list operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential scope and parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it omits potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., zone existence).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: host is 'vSZ controller IP or hostname' and zone_id is 'Zone UUID'. This adds meaningful format and semantic context beyond the raw schema names, though it does not provide deeper guidance like where zone_id can be found.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all WLANs in a zone.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('WLANs'), and a scoping context ('in a zone'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vsz_get_wlan (singular fetch) and vsz_create_wlan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: use this tool to list all WLANs associated with a specific zone. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough without explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.